IMPORTANT POINT
The need for appropriate punishment to respond to society's cry for justice against the criminal, and the inappropriateness of extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in cases of outraging the modesty of women and attempting rape.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the mother of the victim girl, questioning the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2005 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge extending the benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (For short ‘the Act’) suspending the sentence of three years granted by the trial Court in S.C.No.680 of 2004, dated 03.11.2005 for the offence of rape committed on the girl aged five years.

2. The 2nd respondent/accused was tried for the offence under Section 376(f) of IPC. Petitioner (PW1) herein is mother of victim girl (PW2) and defacto complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 victim girl was aged 5 years when the incident had taken place. On the day of incident, PW1 was looking for the victim girl and it was informed by the sister of the victim that victim girl went to the opposite house of the 2nd respondent/accused. P.W.1 went to the house of accused had taken back P.W.2. She noticed some semen marks on the underwear of the victim girl. Victim girl was cleaned up, bath given and thereafter taken to the police station. Having received complaint from PW1, the police arrested the accused. Having concluded investigation, police filed charge sheet.

3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, who conducted trial, examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. In support of defence, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 document was marked.

4. The trial Judge found that the accused was guilty of the offence and accordingly convicted for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

5. In Appeal, learned Sessions Judge agreed with the findings of the trial Court and held that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused under Section 376(f) of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. However, on the plea of accused, learned Sessions Judge deemed it appropriate to call for a report of the Probation Officer of the District. In the said report, the Probation Officer stated that the accused appeared for SSC Board examination but has not passed the examination. He was associated with all bad elements, however, there is no previous criminal record. The parents were working as daily wage labourers and he had no proper guidance from his parents. He is in the habit of watching movies and also enraged by nude scenes in movies and Television, has committed the offence.

6. On the basis of the said report by the Probation Officer, learned Sessions Judge deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Act and directed that the accused should be released after due admonition and was called upon to enter into a bond with two sureties for an amount of Rs.15,000/- for a period of two years. It was also directed that the accused can be called upon to appear and undergo sentence, if any conditions are violated. The accused was also asked to appear before the District Probation Officer for a period of two years.

7. None appeared for the 2nd respondent, for which reason, this Court, by order dated 09.03.2023 directed the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad for appointing an Advocate from the panel to assist the Court.

8. As seen from the proceeding sheet, several occasions none appeared for the 2nd respondent, for which reason, the revision was finally heard in the presence of counsel for the revision petitioner and Public Prosecutor. Earlier, this Court directed to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for settlement. However, there was no settlement before the Lok Adalat.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner confined his argument to extending the provisions of Probation of Offenders in such a heinous crime. Victim was aged around 5 years when the incident had taken place. Learned Sessions Judge, having specifically found that the case was made out, committed an error in suspending the sentence and asking the accused to furnish bond of good behaviour for a period of two years.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied o